PD13-05 PRESTENTING IN URETERORENOSCOPY: MULTICENTER EVALUATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IN ENDOUROLOGY (UROICE)

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy I1 Apr 2015PD13-05 PRESTENTING IN URETERORENOSCOPY: MULTICENTER EVALUATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IN ENDOUROLOGY (UROICE) Jan Jessen, Alberto Breda, Marianne Brehmer, Evangelos Liatsikos, Felix Millan Rodriguez, Palle Osther, Cesare Scoffone, and Thomas Knoll Jan JessenJan Jessen More articles by this author , Alberto BredaAlberto Breda More articles by this author , Marianne BrehmerMarianne Brehmer More articles by this author , Evangelos LiatsikosEvangelos Liatsikos More articles by this author , Felix Millan RodriguezFelix Millan Rodriguez More articles by this author , Palle OstherPalle Osther More articles by this author , Cesare ScoffoneCesare Scoffone More articles by this author , and Thomas KnollThomas Knoll More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1069AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Semirigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) are safe and efficient treatment options for urolithiasis of all localizations. A JJ-insertion is often performed in preparation of definitive stone treatment. Aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of prestenting on the outcome of URS. METHODS We analyzed 565 patients out of our prospective multicenter, multinational database who underwent URS for renal or ureteral stones from 06/2011 to 12/2013. Demographic and stone related data, surgery time, stone clearance and complications were evaluated. Univariate and multifactorial statistical analysis was performed using R comparing the prestented and not-prestented group. RESULTS Demographic and stone-related data were comparable in both groups. 323 patients were prestented and 242 not. Overall, prestenting had significant influence on stone free rate (86.38% prestented vs 73.97% not-prestented, p=0.0003) and complication rate (6.5% vs 14.46%, p=0.003) but not on surgery-time (55.34±36.11 vs 60.83±35.28 min, p=0.071). Subgrouped for ureteral and renal calculi, this was also true for renal stones (82.67% vs 60.19%, p=0.0001 / 8.67% vs 19.42%, p=0.02 / 65.75±36.19 vs 69.0±36.37 min, p=0.485). For ureteral stones, there was no significant influence on stone free rate (93.75% vs 90.18%, p=0.4), but significant more complications (3.13% vs 10.71%, p=0.02) and longer surgery times (39.92±30.95 vs 49.69±30.53, p=0.015). In multifactorial analysis, the overall influence of prestenting on URS regarding stone free rate (p=0.0002) and complications (p=0.0044) was also confirmed while OR-time was not significantly influenced by prestenting status. Subgrouped for ureteral and kidney stones, all the results from multifactorial analysis were in line with univariate analysis. For ureteral stones, the influence of prestenting on OR-time (p=0.023) and complications (p=0.0267) was confirmed. Regarding stone free rate, prestented status was removed by model selection, as it had no benefit for the explanatory model. For kidney stones, prestented status had significant impact on stone free rate (p=0.0001) and complication rate (p=0.0267), while it was removed by model selection for surgery-time. CONCLUSIONS Prestenting positively affects safety and efficacy of URS. This is more pronounced in the treatment of kidney stones compared with ureteral stones. Although the stone free rate for ureteral stones is comparable without prestenting, more time is needed to complete the procedure and the complication rate is higher. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e263 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Jan Jessen More articles by this author Alberto Breda More articles by this author Marianne Brehmer More articles by this author Evangelos Liatsikos More articles by this author Felix Millan Rodriguez More articles by this author Palle Osther More articles by this author Cesare Scoffone More articles by this author Thomas Knoll More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...